Several conservative commentators have been criticizing President Obama for being disengaged, AWOL and playing way too much golf while the world burns. But why complain? When he returns to Washington they will criticize him for getting it all wrong.
Wouldn’t the country, the economy and our pocketbooks be safer if he stays disengaged?
While speaking at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the largest annual gathering of conservatives, which took place shortly after Obama’s inauguration, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh commented on how many conservatives had said that they wished Obama well in his presidency.
Limbaugh would have none of it. He asked why in the world he would wish a president well whose socialist goals were to raise taxes, redistribute income, and impose government-run health care.
The CPAC crowd roared its approval because the audience understood the point. If Obama stands for just about everything conservatives, libertarians and tea partiers stand against, and vice versa, then why would we wish him well?
Something similar might be said about an engaged Obama. It was an engaged Obama who brought us the nearly $800 billion stimulus bill that failed to stimulate, a historically slow economic recovery, a government-run health care system that has been one disaster after another, the Dodd-Frank financial services bill, massive new tax increases, presidential recess appointments that the Supreme Court ruled against unanimously, record-high federal debt, NSA snooping in our phone calls and email, and anger and distrust from our allies. And just this week he asked business leaders and his staff to help him find creative ways to reform immigration without having to go through Congress.
If that’s what we get from an “engaged Obama,” then let him stay at Martha’s Vineyard.
Of course, one of the stated complaints about Obama’s vacationing is that the world needs leadership right now. And that’s probably true. But does it need or want the kind of leadership Obama has been providing?
Which is better (or worse): bad leadership or no leadership at all?
On the other hand, I think conservatives would be thrilled if we had a president who could spend more time on the golf course—because the size of government had been scaled back to a point where the president wasn’t involved in every aspect of the economy and our lives. But that’s the difference between a lite-touch presidency and an out-of-touch presidency.
If Obama really has decided to disengage and coast for the next two years, that may be the best decision he’s made in office.